are closer to where the modern democratic party is. biden's entry into this is tougher today than we would have thought two months ago. >> you're joining "morning joe"? a bit. to viewers out there, you can sign up for the newsletter at signup.axios.com. that does it for me. i'm yasmin vossoughian. "morning joe" starts right now. we now see the administration engaged in sto stonewalling of the facts coming to the american people. article one of the legislative branch, spelled out in the constitution, the power of oversight over other branches of government. the right to show. >> in the words of one democrat, it is like a curtain has fallen over the white house. less than a week after the release of the redacted mueller report, three house committees are now facing three acts of defiance from the white house. new oversight and new overnight, president trump is vowing to

fight a judiciary committee subpoena for the testimony of his former white house counsel don mcgahn. this as the white house stopped another former official from testifying before congress. ram p hampering information on how jared kushner got a security clearance, against the advice of career professionals. trump's treasury secretary mnuchin is delaying the irs from complying with a law, with a law, that requires him to turn over the president's tax returns. missing a second deadline from the ways and means committee. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." it's wednesday, april 24th. along with willie geist and me, we have msnbc contributor mike barnicle. national affairs analyst for nbc and msnbc and the co-host and exec fif putive producer of "th circus," john heilemann.

former aide to the george w. bush white house and state departments, and msnbc political analyst, elise jordan. and co-founder and ceo of axios, jim vande h j jim vandehei. mika has the morning off. it's never been quite this dramatic, never been quite this extreme. we may, in fact, have a constitutional showdown that will only be played out in the courts. >> president trump said in an interview yesterday that the mueller report is the final, final decision. he believes the case is closed, and he wants to move on, obviously. willing to block anyone in his current white house or former employees of the white house from testifying. hours after anonymous sources told the "post" that the trump administration will fight congressional subpoenas, like the one sent to ex-white house counsel don mcgahn, the president himself went on the record, telling robert costa of

the "post" that he believes additional testimony is unnecessary. the president saying, quote, i allowed my lawyers and all the people to go testify to mueller. you know how i feel about that whole group of people that did the mueller report. i was so transparent. they testified for so many hours. they have all that information that's been given. he went on, i fully understood that at the beginning, i had my choice. president trump added of his decision to allow his aides to testify in mueller's probe, i could have taken the absolute opposite route. "the new york times," meanwhile, reported last year when mueller asked to interview mcgahn in 2017, to the surprise of the white house counsel's office, the white house signalled they had no objection, without knowing the extent of what mcgahn was going to tell investigates. chairman jerry nadler said because the committee subpoena covers the topics mcgahn discussed in the mueller report, they cannot comply with one investigation and obstruct another. saying, quote, the moment for

the white house to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed. joe, don mcgahn may have a choice here. the president can tell him not to testify. don mcgahn can ignore that request from the president and sit before the judiciary committee by answering that question. >> yeah, he can. we'll see exactly what happens. he certainly doesn't want to be held in contempt of congress. >> right. >> he's already said as much. he also doesn't want to violate any privilege that the white house may have. you know, jim, we all remember when the president allowed don mcgahn to testify without much of a fight in front of the mueller investigation. actually, on this point, the president actually has a point. which is, well, you know, we cooperated with the mueller investigation. he gave, you know, tons of hours of time and interviews before

the mueller team. why does he need to do it again? you might be able to understand that reasoning. the only problem with that is, because he testified for so long in front of mueller, that privilege, that executive privilege, i would think for all intents and purposes, that's waived, and any court would determine it would be waived. >> yeah. it is a big problem for the white house because don mcgahn is sort of the star of the mueller report and, i think, has the opportunity to be the star of this whole saga, dealing with donald trump. he knows so much, and he testified for so long. i do think because they waived the executive privilege, no matter how much the president wants to run out the clock and drag this out, eventually, most people who looked at it think that mcgahn probably will end up testifying before congress. it's problematic. don mcgahn, obviously, read the mueller, some of the most captivating sections in the

report are about mcgahn and about efforts to obstruct justice and obstruct that probe, being instructed himself to tell things that he knew to be lies. that's a big problem. the president read that report or read the summary of the report or watched the coverage of the summaries of the report, and he's livid that these people who worked for him testified and embarrassed him. he is not just saying, don't you testify, don mcgahn. he is saying, anybody inside the white house, anybody affiliated with this, turn down the subpoenas. protect my tax returns. we wants to drag this out, and he doesn't want anyone else sitting before congress. he believes, and probably rightly so, that republicans will stand behind him, both in congress and voters. he feels -- one of his aides told us last night he thinks it is a good political issue. he'll take it to the courts like he did his business cases before being in the presidency, and they think he can drag it out to election day. it hurts democrats to fight him

on this topic that he feels he won because the mueller report didn't call for an indictment or say he obstructed justice, specifically. >> i think the president is right in this case. i don't think he is going to get much pushback from republicans in congress. i don't think he'll get much pushback from the voters by defying congress and having a showdown with the democratic house. this has happened before, john heilemann, not to the extent we're seeing right now, but we all remember back in 2011 when the republican house oversight committee was trying to get information on fast and furious from then attorney general eric holder. held him in contempt. from 2011 to 2016, they didn't get any of the answers that they wanted. i've got to say, i, for one, i'm ready for the courts to bring some sort of resolution to this.

a contempt of congress does not have the bite that it should have. >> right. >> we learned that not only in the obama administration but in the bush administration. white houses, for the most part, have been able to run rough shot over oversight committees. think it is time for the d.c. circuit and supreme court to step in and be aggressive and give some of the article one power back. >> yeah. i mean, look, joe, i think, yes, on the current trajectory we're on, we're headed for a court battle, and one with extraordinarily high stakes. the politics are a little different, i think, for this president, this congress, over these issues than they were over fast and furious or a variety of other times when executive privilege was claimed in an overbroad way. the history people go to will be to go to nixon and watergate. i think you are -- i think the interesting question to me is the political one, where if you

think about where things were five days ago, nancy pelosi was telegraphing to the entire world that she did not want to pursue impeachment. much of the democratic caucus was reluctant to pursue impeachment. in that sense, donald trump's sfw interests and much of the democratic party's interests were aligned, in the sense that donald trump doesn't want to be impeached and the house democrats were not eager to try to impeach it. somehow, by defying the house in such a blanket way on this issue and others, and getting into such a pronounced fight with p le pelosi, it seems the president is inviting impeachment. he is making it difficult for democrats not to take the step, the step they weren't eager to take. if the president and white house are going to continue to play the game the way they're playing it, with this level of adepression a

aggression and level of total disregard for the institutional prerogatives in congress, he's backing nancy pelosi into a corner in some sense, where she'll have to start down the path in a straight forward way, toward impeachment. i think the pressure on democrats from the democratic base is rising as they see the white house acting with this kind of impotence. >> again, that's exactly what donald trump would hope would happen. that'd be the reaction i think he'd hope to see. if impeachment hearings start, his numbers are going to be going up, willie. we talked about that yesterday. another thing that this constitutional showdown brings up -- i wouldn't call it a constitutional crisis, which would have happened if donald trump had fired mueller, but this constitutional showdown once again shows that, you know, of all the institutions that have held up well during the

challenges brought on by the trump administration, one that continues to cause me problems is the office of the attorney general. that was the case before barr got in there. think about this, when a congress holds an administration in contempt for not testifying or not turning over documents, then, to be prosecuted, you have to go where? to a u.s. attorney. >> right. >> who has to get the approval from the attorney general. one of the reasons eric holder from 2011 to 2016 was able to ignore subpoena after subpoena and contempt citation after contempt citation, seems to me we need to re-examine the role of the attorney general and move it beyond being such a partisan position to almost being like the fbi director, where the ag is appointed for ten-year service. >> yeah. william barr, obviously, showed

his hand last week, when a lot of people were hoping he'd stand in the breach and have a clear and concise explanation and a fair explanation for what was in the mueller report. he got ahead of it and put a partisan spin on it. we know where he stands, and i understand your concerns. elise, it is not just the story of blocking testimony from the white house. there's all kinds of stonewalling. we can go back to the tax returns and also a lawsuit filed by be trump and the trump organization against elijah cummings, the chairman of the oversight committee, because he is seeking trump organization financial records. the president accusing cummings of overstepping his role in oversight. they are battening down the hatches at the white house and sealing the place off. >> definitely your point about william barr, we saw in the display that's week that he is willing to take an incredibly strong stance on behalf of executive power. i think to john's point, about how the political winds are shifting and growing towards the inevitability of impeachment,

and you look at donald trump continuing to fight it, and he may not want it, but republicans on the one hand kind of want it because it helps them, and the democratic base certainly does want it. >> mike, you have to get in on this one. we expect former vice president joe biden to jump into the crowded democratic primary field tomorrow. two sources close to vice president biden with direct knowledge of the planning confirmed to nbc news the former vice president plans to announce his run tomorrow morning with anian online video. he'll travel to pittsburgh on monday for an event at a local union hall, nbc learned. then plans in the following weeks to kick off with iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, and nevada. meanwhile, biden will enter the 2020 race with a huge fundraising disadvantage. "the new york times" reports against bernie sanders, who raised $26 million across his committees, biden will enter the

race with zero dollars. the former vice president's campaign would have to raise $100,000 every day until christmas to watch sanders' fundraising totals by the beginning of april. obviously, biden will catch up. he knows a lot of people in high places in the democratic party. what is his mindset? what's his mentality as he hops into the race tomorrow? >> i think his mentality is that he is the only guy who can certainly beat donald trump. that's his whole card. that is the card he is going to play. he has begun to make fundraising calls himself, which is unusual. he doesn't like to do it. there is the peril for him, in that bernie sanders and multiple other candidates in the field, jim va jim, have specific knowledge on how to reach repeat contributors. the biden campaign doesn't have that base yet. they're going to have to go, initially, i would think, to large donors who drop down big

checks at fundraising dinners. that way, the other candidates will lash back at him, i'm sure. >> yeah. there's a couple problems for biden. he is getting in and will make the argument, i'm the only one who can beat trump, but democrats will see there are several democrats who poll head to head against the president quite well, and often as well as he does. two, this is just a different era. in terms of especially at this juncture of the campaign, it is how well can you communicate with people on social media? can you get them to turn out for your events? can you convert followers into low donor dollars, which creates its own momentum? joe biden is old school, raising money from the big money folks inside the democratic party. doing this conventionally. look at the rollout. he'll do it in his home state, then go to the four early states. he's going to do the speeches that you think a joe biden would do. i think it is just a different

time for him. had he gotten in a month or two ago, when everybody was saying he could be the savior and protector of the democratic party, it'd be a different story. the coverage of him the last few weeks has been less than positive. there's just been a lot -- even the coverage of his announcement has been very much he is going to do it this day, that day, by video, might not be by video. it feels it is not a well-oiled machine, and it feels he is jumping in when there are a lot of democrats generating excitement. if you look at buttigieg, berni heart kamala harris, elizabeth warren, there is buzz that they could generate excitement around the democratic party in a way joe biden might have problems doing it. >> i have yet to talk to a democratic activist or a democratic fundraising who is excited about joe biden getting in the race.

i'll take it a step further. i've been surprised, but almost every democrat i have spoken with is concerned that this is going to end badly for joe biden, and that he should not get into the race. that is something i have heard repeatedly over the past self-months. wh what about you? >> yes. i think it is consistent with a lot of people who report on politics and are tuned into this stuff have been hearing, joe, including me. i would say among people who are close to the vice president and people who consider themselves fans of joe biden, people who would be happy to live in an america where joe biden was the president, those are maybe the constituency that is most concerned about what's about to happen to him. they've seen what's happened, what's unfolded over these last few months, not just related to some of the issues with some women who said he was sort of

too familiar with them in some cases and didn't respect their personal space, but also watching him kind of mishandle some questions related to how progressive he is and how he fits into the modern party. there are these issues that jim just pointed to and mike pointed to. he had never been a good fundraising. he's never been someone with a big fundraising base. he's not been in the era of small donor fundraising. he has loyalists who love him and support him, in 1988 a98 an 2008, both runs for president didn't work out well. among activists, there is not a cry, and they are not the whole of the trat idemocratic party b there is a chunk of yardage between now and the first votes. there aren't a lot of activists who are calling for joe biden. those who like him the most, have his best interest at heart,

there is a sense of concern that this might not go all that well. >> i hear a lot of the same things. remember, he is polling at or near the top of the democratic field. he's got a long road ahead of him. there's time for him to make up the ground. there is the latest poll with joe biden on top of the race, seven points up on bernie sanders. at the end of the day, as mike said, joe, a lot of people will look at this race and say, who can beat donald trump? who ends the trump administration? they may decide it is joe biden. >> the question is, willie, how does he move this conversation forward? the last month we've seen not overly negative stories about him, but there is a negative dynamic set into this campaign. it is hard to see joe biden stirring up the type of excitement as, say, you know, kamala harris did in her introduction, or that mayor pete is doing every day. so the question is, how does he change the dynamic? he is used to being treated well

by the press. he's always been treated well by the press. things may get much more difficult in this competitive democratic primary. >> i would say this though, joe, we're going to find out fairly quickly here. >> yeah. >> i think within the next two months, once the former vice president announces, once he gets out there on the trail, once he sees crowds, how big are the crowds? what's the response to him among the crowds? what's the emotion behind his campaign? what is the pitch of his campaign? that's all going to be laid out, i think, pretty quickly. >> jim, before you go, last word on biden wharks , what do you t? >> i agree he is leading in the polls. so much has to do with people knowing who joe biden is. it'll be interesting, if you watched the cnn forum earlier this week with the five candidates, you have a party, most of your candidates, other than buttigieg, who is not saying that much specifically, who sound so far to the left of joe biden, who sound so far to the left of democratic candidates that we've heard in

the past. they sound that way because that's what's resonating with the democratic party right now. if you're not with them on medicare for all and free college education and other topics, it is tough right now. >> the road begins tomorrow for joe biden. jim, thanks so much. >> take care. let's turn to other stories we're following this morning. in the wake of the deadly terrorist bombings in sri lanka, the death tolls rise along with the number of arrests. the number of people killed now in the attacks has hit 359. according to the "associated press," and additional 18 suspects were arrested overnight, growing to 58. several suspects are at large and may be armed with explosives. isis has claimed responsibility for the attack, releasing images purportedly showing the suicide bombers declaring their loyalty to the terrorist group. isis has produced no evidence in support of those claims. sri lanka's defense minister said yesterday, investigates believe the attacks were in

retaliation for the christchurch mosque shootings in new zealand that killed 50 people but, again, offered little evidence to support the link. new zealand officials say they're not able to confirm any connection. new overnight, north korean dictator kim jong-un arrived in russia ahead of his summit with vladimir putin. kim told russian state-owned media he is hoping for a successful and useful visit. adding, he'd like to discuss bilateral ties with russia. the trip comes two months after kim's second summit with president trump failed because of a dispute over sanctions. the s&p 500 and nasdaq composite rallied yesterday with record closing highs as wall street celebrated strong quarterly profits from some of the largest publicly traded companies, like coca-cola and twitter. according to fact set data, more than 78% of the s&p 500 companies that reported earnings surpassed analysts' expectations. and an incredible finish to game five of the portland

trailblazers and oklahoma city thunder's playoff series last night. check this shot. >> lillard, a chance to send the thunder home. lillard, long range three. it's good! damian lillard, are you kidding me? >> no way. >> the game is tied. lillard is dribbling out front. paul george is laying off because he is surely not shooting from there. 37 footer for dame to win the series. by the way, that shot gave him 50 points in the game, as well. portland knocks okc out of the playoffs, taking on denver or san antonio next. >> that's about two feet short of when shaq was guarding you, and you popped one. >> if you're going one on one with shaq, as i did recently, you have to take him outside. don't want to play on his turf

inside. you follow the nba closely, john. lillard, because he's in portland, on the west coast, he doesn't get as much love as he deserves. >> he's incredible. all the teams in the pacific time zone don't get a look unless you're the los angeles lakers and warriors of late. man, the portland team is a very strong team. he is a great player. as people are going to get a chance to look at him now in the playoff basketball, he could come out on the other end of the playoffs as a much, much bigger star than he currently is. >> incredible shot. ahead on "morning joe," jared kushner down plays the russians hacking the campaign. more on that when "morning joe" comes back. pnc bank has technology to help make banking easier, like... a business borrowing solution to help get a little more space with a lot less mom.

or home insight, to search for a new house within your budget. because, they really need their space. pnc - make today the day. so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. e-commerce deliveries to homes how do you get skin happy aveeno® with prebiotic oat. it hydrates and softens skin. so it looks like this... and you feel like this. aveeno® daily moisturizer get skin happy™

mno kidding.rd. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. we have a lot of incredible

rights in america and safeties we take for granted oftentimes. there are people on the front lines that cannot be here, like a saudi activist who helped fight to lift the women's driving ban. she's currently in prison. she cannot be with us here tonight. she's been tortured. this is a very powerful room and, you know, i know there's a lot of powerful people here. it'd be crazy if, i don't know, if there was like a -- i don't know, if there was a high-ranking official in the white house that could what's app and say, hey, maybe help that person get out of prison because they don't deserve it. but that'd be crazy. that'd be -- that person would have to be in the room. >> that's last night's time 100 dinner, toasting someone not in the room with the reference to someone who was. jared kushner was sitting just a few tables away from hasan when

he said that. early yerl in t ear earlier in the day, kushner downplayed russia's cyber campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. >> you look at what russia did, buying some facebook ads to try to sow dissent, and it is a terrible thing, but i think the investigations and all of the speculation that's happened for the last two years had a much harsher impact on the democracy than facebook ads. if you look at what they ensuin investigations have been way more harmful to our country. >> facebook reported russia-based operatives publi published around 80,000 posts that could have reached about 126 million americans. joe, in the mueller investigators called the efforts sweeping and systemic. not just a few facebook ads. >> yeah. elise jordan, you also, of course, had -- you also had

officials, administration officials, kirstjen nielsen, for instance, saying this was a threat to our democracy. along the same lines, a breaking story right now from "the new york times," reporting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney warned then homeland secretary kirstjen nielsen not to mention how she was working to stop russian attempts to meddle in the 2020 u.s. elections. to not mention that in front of president trump. according to the report by eric schmidt and maggie haberman, at a meeting this year, mulvaney made it clear president trump equated any public discussion of malign russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. according to one senior administration official, mulvaney said it wasn't a great subject and should be kept at a low level. it seems to me i'm missing -- hold on.

i can't go on here. who else wrote this story? david sanger, exactly. i didn't want to leave david out of there. incredible reporter for the "times." but this was, elise, something that the head of the fbi, the head of the justice department, the head of nsa, i mean, everybody. national director of intelligence. everybody that is anybody in that administration said that actually russian interference in the elections threatened american democracy. that's pretty straight forward. >> joe, it is mindblowi imind-be that leaders' feelings are more important than protecting the integrity of fair and free elections. that is so sack -- we have a

leader whose ego would allow us to address crucial security threats because his feelings might be hurt and it calls into question his election. that's where we are today. >> mike, i want to ask you this question. over the weekend, rudy giuliani went on television on a couple occasions and said, i don't see what the problem is with accepting material from an adversary. in this case, russia, stolen from the democratic national committee, from john podesta's email account. i see no problem with that. that's not a problem. now, we have jared kushner on television saying, you know, this facebook thing, this russian interference thing was not a big deal. it's just a couple ads here and there, right? what message does it send to russia, when the president's lawyer and the president's son-in-law, in the course of 48 hours, make those kind of statements about their view about russian interference?

what is the message it sends and what does it foretell for 2020 in. >> russia, we know you're here. we're going to open the door wider now because we're going to ignore what you've done and what you're continuing to do and what you want to do in the 2020 election. the kushner appearance though yesterday, john, in the "time" magazine thing, the combination of arrogance and ignorance that he displayed in answering that question is nearly breathtaking, but it is predictable. it is also very predictable as to why so many members of the intelligence community did not want to give him a security clearance. based on that answer, he ought not to have a security clearance. >> one other line from the report reads this way, quote, as a result, the issue did not gain the urgency or widespread attention that a president can command, and it meant that many americans remain unaware of the latest versions of russian interference. joe, when you look at this story, i think we've said this

from the beginning, there was always a way, if it had been someone perhaps different than donald trump, someone with a little ego, of saying, yes, russia interfered in the 2016 election but, no, i had nothing to do with that. he could still make that case if he wanted to. >> right. >> he could say, volume one of the mueller report could not establish a conspiracy between my campaign and russian government, but i accept my intel conclusions that, yes, russia did sbe feinterfere, and have to do more about it. that'd be the responsible thing for a president to do. >> that would be responsible. the thing that many people in the white house from the start really have not been able to understand is why the president couldn't grasp the fact that he could claim victory and still go after russia. he could claim victory and still say -- i mean, as i've said, vladimir putin had nothing to do with donald trump being elected

president of the united states. they tried to influence the election, but most people who looked at it don't think that they did. you can say both of those things. again, as we have said from the beginning, trump nmdonald trumpn any suggestion that the russians interfered with the election as somehow undermining the legitimacy of his presidential win. it is surprising. willie, this is something, again, that we do have to be worried about in 2020. if you listen to the men and women who run our intel communities, if you listen to people in the department of homeland security, this is critical. also, i've got to say, it would be nice to have a president that gets russia right for once. again, we have spent the first part of this century with three presidents who have misplayed vladimir putin. you had george w. bush saying that he had looked deep into the eyes of vladimir putin and could read his soul and was a good

guy. well, a lot of bad behavior later, invasion of georgia, george w. bush found out he was dead wrong. barack obama misplayed him. obama was warned time and time again about russian interference in the 2016 election. in the spring of 2016, did nothing. of course, mitch mcconnell also said that he'd point fingers ahtya at barack obama if he did nothing. the buck stopped with barack obama, by the way. again, everyone thought hillary clinton was going to win, so they didn't say anything. now, you have donald trump, wh s o sat there and has done nothing in the face of russian interference with his own intel agency saying this is a threat to our american democracy. again, nothing happens. this is 19 years of dramatic misplays by american presidents.

it's put vladimir putin in a much stronger position than he should be in right now. >> again, at this moment in particular, president trump could say, the mueller report and that first volume cleared my campaign of a conspiracy. let's take this head on. it has nothing to do with my victory. let's prevent it from happening again, but we won't. >> turn the page. >> no, he doesn't appear to want to turn the page ever. must-read opinion pages are ahead. plus, for the first time ever, a major pharmaceutical distributor and executives are facing criminal charges for their role in the opioid crisis. we'll talk about what this means for that epidemic devastating american families. we're back in a moment on "morning joe." "morning joe."

plants capture co2. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪ we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com this and even this.hark, i deep clean messes like this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair, while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself.

there's thousands of ingredients out there. the freshest stuff this planet can grow. not buzzword fresh. but, actually fresh-fresh. fresh. at panera, we hand-pick berries at peak-season. use creamy avocado. cage-free eggs. and a dressing fit for a goddess. oh and every ingredient is 100% clean. come taste what a salad should be. and for your next event big or small, try panera catering. panera. food as it should be. i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding.

don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

for the first time, two pharmaceutical executives are facing felony drug trafficking charging for their role in the opioid addiction crisis. new york's rochester drug cooperative and two former executives have been criminally charged with illegally distributing tens of millions of unnecessary doses of prescription painkillers, oxycodo oxycodone, fentanyl, and other opioids, to pharmacies across

the country. prosecutors allege they then concealed the red flag orders from the drug enforcement administration, reporting only four of about 8,300 to potentially suspicious orders. rdc agreed to pay a $20 million fine and will be allowed to continue operating under new self-created standards. both executives face a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison. joe, this could be just the beginning of prosecutions in what is an epidemic that's swept across the country. >> well, yeah. let's hope so. it does seem like the justice department is starting to roll up a lot of people that have been involved in making this opioid crisis so much worse. let's bring in our good trend, state attorney from palm beach county, dave. one of the chief complaints

about the 2008 stock market crash was so many people lost their life savings, but executives were never held accountable. looks like in this case, we're seeing something new, executives being held accountable for making massive profits on the pain and the suffering of average americans. >> yeah. hi, joe. it is about time that the distributors are held accountable, along with their executives, for their role in the opioid epidemic. this was a manmade crisis, years in the making. it was created by corporate malfeasan malfeasance, political greed, apathy and regulatory failure. a lot of attention is paid to the drug manufactures, but let's not forget about the distributors, like rochester, who are supposed to be the gatekeepers for prescription medication. instead, they sent millions of opioid pills into communities ravaged by this epidemic for profit, even doing so, apparently, in opposition to their own compliance department. yeah, i think the charges are

very justified. >> so is there a possibility, dave, this moves up the chain, and goes from the drug distributors to the drug manufacturers, who also had to know that, along with the billions of dollars they were making off of this, that there were a lot of americans that were suffering and dying? >> well, i hope so. there is a consolidated class action lawsuit in ohio to hold pharma and others accountable from a civil standpoint. when you take it to the criminal specter, it is another thing and that's what deters the bad behavior. i would hope it can move to the criminal context because this is an appalling epidemic that takes 130 lives every single day in the united states. for far too long, the drug industry has been too cozy with the regulators and the lawmakers. the lawmakers passed the bill in 2016 to kneecap the dea in its enforcement efforts. federal regulators have been too cozy with the industry they're

supposed to oversee. here, i'm in atlanta at this national opioid conference, and it was reported that every fda director of the pain treatment division has gone on to work for the pharmaceutical companies that make opioids. i mean, this has got to change. >> yeah. so can you give us, by the way, any insights into what's happening in your own county regarding -- we heard, unfortunately, yesterday also robert kraft and surveillance tapes and fighting to get rid of the surveillance tapes. we don't want too much of the details here, dprogrosses us ou this early in the morning, but can you tell us anything about the case? >> joe, i heard what you said yesterday about the ear muffs. i can assure you that as a state attorney, i am ethically prohibited from talking about the facts of a pending case inside my own -- pending criminal case inside my own

jurisdiction. i can speak to the procedure and the scheduling. so you have mr. kraft's lawyers, who have filed a motion to suppress the videos in this case, and that motion is scheduled to be heard this friday in county court. at the same time, you have the media's lawyers, who filed documents in court in the related case of the alleged madames, and they are seeking the release of all videos in these cases. this is filed in felony court, scheduled to be heard this coming monday. as far as the class action lawsuits, the civil class action lawsuits, which are a separate matter filed against me and others, i can tell you prosecutors get sued all the time for doing their jobs. this is no different. most, if not all of those, lawsuits fail. here, you have an alleged 31 different plaintiffs that are alleged to be john and jane does, reported in the press. in reality, the records show there can only be up to four different possible plaintiffs who fit the description mentioned in the lawsuit.

if even that. we're hopeful that the facts will all come out in the upcoming federal courtroom. >> what's the latest in the college admissions scandal? people are still talking about that. obviously, a lot of people still being charged. the usc coach pled guilty to a felony. where's that going to head, especially with the big name stars? are they going to -- you think they're going to get a deal at the end of the day, or will they fight it to the end? >> well, the longer that lori loughlin holds out, the tougher the deal will be for her. as they say, first in, first to win. there was a different approach taken by her counterpart, felicity huffman, who took the deal and will probably get the best deal. the longer lori loughlin waits, the tougher it'll be, especially now she's seen the co-defendants walk spot u.s. attorney offices taking deals. it is a bad sign if you're watching that. i do think that the longer this goes on, the more likely it is

for aunt becky to serve prison time. >> aunt becky's lawyer is not doing aunt becky favors right now, are they? >> no, sir. i can't give legal advise, but the longer you wait, the less of an incentive there is for the federal prosecutors to cut a deal with you. when you see your co-defendants start turning state's witness, that is not a good sign for you. yeah, i think maybe people should start listening to you, joe, on this. >> okay. do the deal. dave, thank you so much. we appreciate you taking a break from your conference. incredibly important conference on opioids. still ahead, we have must-read opinion pages, including an op-ed written by a former member of donald trump's transition team who is now calling for the president's impeachment. "morning joe" back in a moment. we call it the mother standard of care.

it's how we care for our patients- like job. his team at ctca treated his cancer and side effects. so job can stay strong for his family. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. cancer treatment centers of america. i swibecause they let metual, customize my insurance. and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything, like my bike, and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ behr presents: outdone yourself. staining be done...

and stay done through every season. behr semi-transparent stain, overall #1 rated. stay done for years to come. find it exclusively at the home depot.

we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com welcome to fowler, indiana. one of the windiest places in america. and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.

let's get in a must-read. "the mueller report was my tipping point." i was one of the first 16 members of trump's transition team, as deputy director of economic policy. i wasn't very good at hiding my distaste. we parted ways in october 2016 ammicly. i wasn't the right fit. i never considered joining the never trump republican efforts. they didn't seem pragmatic. there is no avoiding the fact he'd won. like others, i felt the focus should be on guiding his policy decisions in a constructive direction. there is a point, he writes, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct. the mueller report was that tipping point for me. it should be for republican and independent voters and for republicans in congress. the president dangled pardons in front of witnesses to encourage

them to lie to the special counsel and directly ordered people to lie to throw the special counsel off the scent. this elaborate pattern of obstruction may have succe successfully impeded the mueller investigation from uncovering a conspiracy to commit more serious crimes. at a minimum, there is enough here to get the impeachment process started. elise, he is a law professor at george mason university, part of the pre-transition party. and at this point, having read the mueller report details, he believes the impeachment process should start. elizabeth warren agrees with him on the campaign trail. what do you think? >> there seems to be a wave of inevitability regarding the impeachment process. you see so many candidates coming out in favor. democrats at their leadership level need to figure out what they're going to do. where is chuck schumer on this? nancy plelosi has done an inept

job at managing her caucus to this point. democrats have a vested interest in having this happen. >> as elise said, mike, and i've heard from the white house, they're happy to have democrats talk about impeachment. they know it is a dead end if it gets to the republican-controlled senate. they're happy to let democrats be mired in the investigation. >> the burden now on nancy pelosi is enormous. if you read and re-read volume two of the mueller report, it is all -- the impeachment procedure is all right there in one item, the back and forth with don mcgahn. you don't have to complete the obstruction to be charged with obstruction. >> hold those many thoughts i see you have. ahead, president trump's power struggle with house democrats intensifying as the white house appears to wage a war on oversight. the "washington post" robert costa joins us with his new reporting. republican senator mike lee

will join our conversation. "morning joe" is coming back in a moment. ckn i a moment edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from using feedback to innovate... to introducing products faster... to managing website inventory... and network bandwidth. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence.

so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. e-commerce deliveries to homes and i recently had hi, ia heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers,

a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. how do you get skin happy aveeno® with prebiotic oat. it hydrates and softens skin. so it looks like this... and you feel like this.

aveeno® daily moisturizer get skin happy™ well, it's ironic, even though our two nations are almost exactly across the world from each other, our leaders have the same style. they're macho, populist styles, sexist at best, masochistic at worst.

our leaders, these leaders, use anger and fear to divide and to conquer. they create and they live a politics of hate. >> that was journalist maria ressa at the time 100 gala, comparing president donald trump with philippines' president duerte. in the room, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, jared kushner. seemed many of the people with microphones was speaking directly to him. it is "morning joe." mika has the morning off. still with willie and me, we have national affairs analyst for nbc news and msnbc john heilemann. former aide to the george w bush white house and state departments, elise jordan. joining the conversation, nbc news capitol hill correspondent and host on msnbc, kasie hunt. i wait.

i wait. i wait. >> there we go. >> laser on. >> wow. >> metallica in the morning. >> mika isn't here. mika doesn't like the lightning bolt. joe, on the other hand. >> no, no, no. >> he is a fan. >> fan of the lightning bolt. >> the lightning bolt is amazing. you have gear. you have kasie d.c., like dog bowls and cups. >> our dogs are obsessed with kasie d.c. >> willie and i have a place in upstate new york, up by -- no, seriously. we get this. >> we got it, yeah. >> we have this place just north of el mira. we have this amazing, aboveground pool with your logos around the whole side. >> yes. >> wow. >> the kids -- kasie, the

kids -- >> i need to check this out. >> it is the kasie d.c. doughboy. jonathan also with us. he's won a pulitzer prize. also, we have bob costa from the "washington post," also a moderator. man, i'm still excited about this. this show is must-see tv. washington week on pbs. also an msnbc political analyst. bob, we'll start with you. you, maggie haberman, and a few others have continued to have a good working relationship with donald trump through the years. i know during the campaign, he credited you for being fair to him. you certainly have written a lot of really tough articles about the president, but you still maintain that working relationship. you got to speak with him yesterday. let's start -- before we get into what he told you, it's always fascinating to hear about

the president's mood. what -- how did he seem to be? how did his outlook seem to be with the mueller report a week behind him? >> this is a president who, on the phone, is the same as he was years ago when i first started to cover him. defiant, somewhat dismissive of critics. this is a president who has not changed. that came through in the interview. this is someone who also is making decisions on his own. he made clear throughout the interview, as he did in almost every interview over the past few years, that he is the one deciding his own legal and political strategy. he is the one looking to capitol hill and thinking through his next steps. >> bob, do you believe the president on that front? we don't hear of many people inside the white house having a great influence on his decision making at all. do you take the president at his word, that he is the decider in chief, without really any

powerful aides to speak of? >> i don't take any source just at their word, but based on my conversations with white house officials, they had been looking for clues in recent days about where exactly the president's head was at when it came to asserting executive privilege. is the white house going to block people like don mcgahn from testifying on capitol hill or not? emmet flood in the white house counsel's office said the white house was prepared to mount a major fight against congress on the front. the president had not ar articulated anything publicly or privately yet. he leaned into it in the interview with the "washington post." it tells you he wants to engage in a political war. >> let's talk about the contrast here. i do think it is fascinating. you know, you hear the roar of the news churning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, outrage toward donald trump. i think this is a good place for us to stop for a moment and note

the difference that donald trump has had between robert mueller and his investigation and the democrats. donald trump talked a lot about defying robert mueller. wanted other people to do his bidding and fire robert mueller. he'd never step up to that line himself paubecause he knew that would be going into a constitutional breach. but congress, well, it is an equal branch, and i guess he's decided, you know, i'll take that fight on. that's a president's prerogative. can you talk about the difference in that? for all of the tweets, and for all of the craziness that seems to be emanating out of the white house, this president does seem still to know how to pick his fights. >> well, he's doing more than picking a fight here. he is on a collision course for a constitutional, dramatic

reckoning, where you'll have house democrats try to assert their own power, their own authority and oversight over the executive branch, defying executive branch led by a president who we've never seen at this level in recent decades be so defiant with congress. presidents clinton and nixon had their own fights. he sees congress as a different target than robert mueller's investigation. though he'd constantly attack robert mueller's probe, with congress, he framed it in partisan terms. he also called robert mueller's investigation partisan. he believes he can walk away from the congressional side of things in a way he could not necessarily walk away from the federal department of justice, special counsel probe. >> did you hear the president say anything about eric holder, using eric holder and his defiance of the republican house oversight committee for five years as one of the reasons he could do it.

sort of the attitude, well, barack obama and his administration held them up for five years before responding to the questions on fast and furious, so why can't i? >> the president didn't bring it up, but white house officials have brought it up in private conversation with reporters. they believe what the president wants, when they're in the oval office with him, is time. he'd like to see this kicked to the federal courts. he'd rather fight congress day in and day out and have the courts settle, should don mcgahn sit before the house judiciary committee or not? letting the courts decide rather than giving his blessing, to him, that is the political and legal strategy. >> bob, i'm curious about any conversation you may have had with the president about this public debate over the question of impeachment. the cliff's notes version that i get from people around the white house and around the president goes something like this, progressives, congressional democrats and the media propped up bob mueller as a saint, whose opinion and conclusions are

unimpeachable. he provided the conclusions last week in volume one at least, where he couldn't establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and the russian government. the white house believes, from people i talked to, if democrats want to keep digging on this and move toward impeachment, that is a public fight that the white house is happy to have, at least to watch democrats have. >> the white house and the president himself in the interview kept describing his own produconduct with robert mu has instructive. he did everything to provide his own attorneys. he was tweeting against the so-called angry democrats. congress has sharp questions they want to ask people like don mcgahn, people who were around this president, about what was the intent of his conduct during those instances. the president saying to the country through the interview, through his own tweets, i've

done enough legally. leave it to the side. he does not feel pressure. this came through in everything he said. he does not feel pressure, and it is going to be a challenge for democrats. how do you apply the pressure politically to a president so adamant about not complying with these requests? how do you compel someone to testify? don mcgahn has a choice. he'll read this interview today in the "post," and he and his lawyer have to make a choice, do they listen to the executive privilege from the president, or do they say, to heck with it, we're going to testify before congress? a lot of these witnesses are going to have choices to make. >> does the president have any concerns about impeachment? he's said publicly he has no concerns whatsoever. in your conversations with him, as he listens to this escalating talk among democrats about the possibility, does it worry him, knowing he has a republican controlled senate that's not going to impeach him? >> the president said he's paying close attention to what speaker pelosi and house democrats are doing.

there is an awareness inside the white house, that even though the speaker said certain things about not moving in that direction, they could impeach him. they also see between now and the end of 2020 republicans control the senate. if an impeachment happens, it comes back to this point of a political war the white house is willing to fight. they know in the u.s. senate, led by mitch mcconnell, they'll be protected by republicans. >> kasie, we've seen over the course of the last few days movement on capitol hill from, you know, pretty much consensus, led by nancy pelosi, we'll investigate but not impeach. suddenly, more calls for impeachment. the ball is moving perceptively, if not dramatically, toward putting at least the contemplation of this on the table, and the president now is openly defying, and you could argue provoking, certainly the democratic base, but i'd say house leadership, too, who feels they have the institutional

prerogatives. you can't defy our subpoenas. they're doing it just not on the front of don mcgahn but other fronts, too. what does this volley do, through the person of bob costa, what is the dynamic this sets in motion? >> it seems to me the president is making a political bet that all of the kind of legal wrangling is going to get over -- you know, get lost in the shuffle, in the noise, right? so he's not really going to lose this from a political p perspecti perspective. i think the question for house democrats is, how aggressively can they move in the courts, and can they do that without pull putting some of their own prerogatives on the table? they have been reluctant to make some of these moves because, quite frankly, it has not been frequently tested in the courts, the congressional power to subpoena and all these other things. should they lose one of these cases in court, it could potentially do major damage. you know, i do think, you know,

for the house democratic caucus, nancy pelosi has been a very, very close ear to the ground with them. if the majority of the caucus starts to shift for impeachment, i think you'll start to hear that from nancy pelosi. her insistence on this path is one that still reflects, despite -- i take your point, there are more voices, more people who are leaning towards impeachment, who are angry about what they read in the mueller report, but i think that her strategy is still to win. she wants to beat donald trump at the ballot box. >> kasie hunt, the democrats are in power right now in the house of representatives because of those last-minute swing districts that broke for democrats. overwhelmingly, 1,000 votes in california, 2,000 votes there in california, 1,500 votes in virginia. you know, 1,700 votes in virginia. there were so many close races that problem the democrats' way.

i'm thinking specifically of races in virginia especially, but also quite a few in california, that just barely broke the democrats' way. that, man, they would turn red in a virginia second and california second if democrats tried to impeach the president. >> yes. >> again, i -- listen, i think justice might suggest the president -- there should at least be hearings, but come on, let's talk. there are people saying, oh, they have to impeach him. kasie, you could name right now ten members of congress who would lose their races in 2020, that just barely won, that just barely gave democrats majority, if democrats went off chasing impeachment for the next year and a half. >> that's exactly, joe, what nancy pelosi is thinking. the people she knows, her house majority power come from the

people you're talking about, suburban districts around the country. the three loudest anno esest no left in the house, ocasio-cor z ocasio-cortez, omar, they come from a retirement in minnesota, conyers stepping down in michigan, ocasio-cortez beating crowley in a district here in new york city that is, i'm sorry, never going to elect a republican. >> yeah. by the way, nancy said, and she said it over in britain, i think it was, that a glass of water could win aoc's district. it is not an insult to aoc. >> of course not. winning a primary is tough. >> a glass of water at this point could win as a republican in my old district. there are just some districts that are not swing districts anymore. >> and the noise, the loudest voices on impeachment, they're coming from places like that one, like your district but on the other side of the aisle. you know, pelosi knows this.

she knows that's what's at stake in 2020. the presidential candidates are reflecting this, as well. where they're coming down on this issue is, you know, illuminating their broader strategies. where are elizabeth warren and kamala harris in the field of democratic candidates? they need most to light up the base of the democratic party. where are, you know, amy klobuchar? joe biden will be pressed on this when he gets in the race on thursday. they are looking at the middle of the country, at rebuilding that blue wall. from that perperspective, the impeachment conversation is not productive. does oversight matter? i would argue, yes. i think they see that asbroader informing the voters. joe, what do the suburban voters not like about donald trump? they don't like the chaos. they don't like the tweeting. every sort of additional piece of information that contributes to that broader portrait is going to help them win in 2020. >> no doubt. >> kasie or robert, either of you, it seems to me that we are

at an inflection point here. we're all talking about politics of impeachment, whether to impeach or not. also, we're dealing with a constitutional question here. we can't keep that -- get this out of our heads. we have a president who is putting the rule of law under assault. the white house is at complete war with congress. my question is, at what point do republicans take the broader view, if that is even possible, that what's happening here is bending the constitution, maybe to a breaking point, and that what they're doing now, by letting the president do all these things, that they're not only about to break the constitution but set things up where they could be on the receiving end of a lot of bad things politically if a democrat takes over the white house in 2020. >> robert touched on the constitutional questions in the "washington post" story, as well, and i'm sure he has thoughts on it. i think democrats certainly

have, if there is something driving the move toward impeachment, it is this question, what are our ethical, moral, constitutional responsibilities. i think the other argument against impeachment is really that, you know, republicans, when the collusion question was answered by robert mueller, that was the end of republicans potentially participating in this process. i think there is no hope for that. mitch mcconnell already said, we need to move on. that answered, if there was a question in the air for nancy pelosi about whether to pursue impeachment, that was asked and answered then. bob, i'm curious your thoughts. you talk to hill republicans all the time. >> we've been paying a lot of attention to don mcgahn's possible testimony before the house judiciary committee and the white house leaning toward asserting executive privilege. if you read the "washington post" story today by my colleagues and others, across the board, beyond don mcgahn, you now have this administration, this white house

working to present testimovent d documents being shared on the controversy, on the tax return issue. this is a white house that post mueller report is as defiant and as willing to fight congress as i've ever seen them as a reporter over the past two plus years. this is a different moment for the trump presidency. it comes through in the kofr conversation with president trump, in conversations with white house officials. they believe they have solid ground now to turn their noses at capitol hill and say, between now and 2020, you're getting nothing unless the court tells us to give it to you. >> you know, john heilemann, i will say, i do understand the political strategy of that, that other presidents might take, you know, i cooperated in an exhaustive investigation that has taken up the first two and a half years of my presidency. i'm not going to spend the rest of my first term dealing with congress. i'm going to fight them, and we'll let the court sort it out.

i understand all that. what i'm wondering is, and we already know the answer to this question, i was going to say, will donald trump, when he sits down and talks to nancy pelosi and chuck schumer this week, strike -- again, these are two of his old friends, two people he contributed to, two people he knows very well. if the truth be known, is far more comfortable with personally and culturally than any member of the republican party, any member whatsoever on capitol hill. but why wouldn't he turn a bit more towards striking those sort of deals to get out of the 30s in these arrival ratings? it doesn't make sense. he can't win at 37%. >> joe, it's always been the case. the one thing that has been consistent about donald trump throughout his two plus years in office is he seems never to care about expanding his coalition.

whatever trump's political prism is, it is the prism that is, there's a bunch of people who got me elected. if i reinforce my standing with those people and not gain a single additional voter, i'll be able to get re-elected. any student of politics, anybody who sits around the set and understands the numbers, that can't be right. it is a huge gamble to think he could win the presidency again with a coalition that is exactly the same as it was four years ago, but that seems to be his thinking. i'll just say, on this question that's directly before us here, as i said earlier today, you know, given that pelosi, as kasie correctly said, she takes close read of the caucus. the correct read of the caucus, her judgment, i think, is correct, the mainstream of the democratic caucus sees more political mileage in investigating trump aggressively and still not going all the way

to impeachment. given that that's where she has been, the question is whether trump right now, by defying her so openly, by provoke her the way he is on these questions that pertain to institutional prerogatives, whether he is forcing her hand in a way that might compe back to bite him later on. opposed to adopting a strategy that might have somehow been able to find a way through this where the fact that their interests are somewhat coincident here, neither wants impeachment, that there was a more clever way, a less defiant way, a subtle way, to end up preserving political capital for himself and ending up to, what you suggested, expand his base rather than just slid olidify w he already has. >> nancy pelosi is a tough enemy to have. i'll pull it that way. >> yes. good lord. who wants that enemy?

i wouldn't. anyway, jonathan, here's what's so fascinating. i do understand why not only democrats but also constitutional lawyers would think donald trump should be held accountable, and impeachment proceedings should go forward, even if the senate is not going to ultimately convict, but do the democrats have the wherewithal as a caucus to listen to nancy pelosi when she says to them, donald trump wants you to do exactly what you're doing. his approval ratings are lower than they've ever been in a couple polls that were just out this week. impeachment is extraordinarily unpopular. if you move toward impeaching donald trump, you're going to do exactly what he wants, and you need to understand, he is going to be baiting you to do just that for the next year.

>> simple answer to your question is, yes, i think she can. i think what's happening is, i can't remember who was bringing this up, about all of the democrats who -- maybe kasie -- all the democrats calling for impeachment are coming from deep blue districts. the speaker knows her caucus. i think having those people demanding that there be impeachment, while at the same time the committee chairman with the gavels continue to do the investigations, calling people up, issuing subpoenas, having people testify under oath publicly, so that the american people get to see and hear from these people for themselves, i think, you know, you can do both of these things at the same time. >> robert costa filling in us in on his conversation last night with the president. bob, thanks, as always. good to see you. ahead on "morning joe." >> i'm for building the republican party into a bigger

tent that can appeal to more people. i think we're doing the opposite right now. i think the republican party is shrinking the base down to only a certain percentage of white males. >> that is republican governor larry hogan of maryland, sounding like he is considering a primary challenge of president trump. we'll talk about that next on "morning joe."

itso chantix can help you quit "slow turkey." along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking "slow turkey." talk to your doctor about chantix.

♪

a lot of people have been approaching me, probably since around the time of my inauguration in late january. people have asked me to give this serious consideration, and i think i owe it to those people to do just that. that's what i'm doing. i'm listening. i'm coming to new hampshire and listening to people as a part of

that process. i've been to ten states in the past few months. i'll have 16 more on my schedule. i'm not at the point where we're ready. i've said before, i'm not going to launch some kind of a suicide mission. >> that's maryland's republican governor larry hogan in new hampshire yesterday, saying his party deserves an alternative to president trump. he is seriously considering a run for president in joining us now, "the new york times" mark, with a headline, "meet the other resistance, the republican one." a handful of dissent republicans think they know how to defeat him in a primary contest. are they wrong, asked mark. good morning. not only is the president popular with his base, he is popular in the republican party. what dent with bill well, for example, or potentially larry hogan put in his support?

>> i think the base, effectively, is the republican party at this point. i mean, in a way, this has become almost one and the same. i think what people like bill well and larry hogan want is to at least have an argument for what this party stands for. it is very easy to dismiss the quote, unquote, republican resistance, in so much as there is a never trump factor inside the republican party. look, the fact is, privately, a lot of republicans are very uncomfortable with the conduct of donald trump, his temperament, the exhaustion factor of the whole thing. they want an alternative of the party. is this 10%, 20%, 40%, as people who are inside this movement would say in, you know, new hampshire and iowa? i guess it remains to be seen. i think what you need, obviously, is an alternative, and larry hogan could be that person. >> mark, i was surprised that larry hogan was in new hampshire yesterday. it seems like more of a serious flirtation than had previously

been speculated about. what do you really think are the odds that governor hogan might throw his hat in the ring? >> well, i mean, i think serious flirtation is a good way of putting it. i think, look, i mean, he'll say -- it is one of the classic reluctant politician things. well, i wasn't thinking about it, but now everyone in the whole world is asking me to run, so i'll think about running. it is a roundabout way to make a decision about it. by the way, i'll be in iowa and new hampshire next week. we've seen this movie before. i do think -- i mean, i talked to him after my deadline. this was two days ago. my sense is, he was somewhat shaken by the mueller report. he had read a lot of it over the weekend. he was digesting it. i think it did increase the drum beat -- drum beat is probably too strong -- it increased the number of voices from within the party to say, consider this because there's a lot here. he seemed upset by it. he also has a family legacy. father was a republican congressman from maryland who was the only republican on the house judiciary committee to

vote for all three articles of impeachment against nixon. nixon said this was a big factor in him deciding to resign. there's a lot going on, and hogan beaares watching. >> i want to talk about what you said a second ago, the point of this. let's focus on bill, in the race. he has stephens, a storied strategist and someone who is the chief strategist of romney's campaign in 2012. to the extent of what they want to do, provoke an argument of what the party stands for, how does that play out? what is the ideal fantasy scenario for bill weld and stewart stephens, how they imagine this playing out? >> i think the cynical view is their fantasy scenario is to have reporters like me going up and covering their events. the fact is, there were probably about 100 people at this house party i went to.

the voters there were legit republicans. a lot voted for jeb. a lot voted for kasich. some voted for trump in the general eluck ta reluctantly. they seemed genuine, thanking him for being there. the reason i focused on bill and not larry is because bill is running. i think bill weld, i was impressed by how seriously he is taking this. he spoke quite fashion gnpassio about his contempt for the president. he, too, has a history. look, i think it'd be healthy for the party. you hear people say this privately, to have this debate. the question is, will donald trump ever engage in a debate within his party without just, you know, insulting everyone, as he did when he was running the last time against republicans? >> mark, thanks for showing up. i am curious though, obviously,

everywhere you go, people come up to you and ask you to run for president. how are you handling that? brushing it aside, or do you have to look into it? everybody is asking you. the drum beat continues to pound. >> yeah. i think like governor hogan, i feel i owe it to these people to at least look for it. i'll be in new hampshire next week. either i'll be running for president or writing about people who think they'll be running for president. >> i can tell you, and willie will second me, i'm sure, as well as heilemann, the drug beat is deafening on the upper west side from about amsterdam and 84th to amsterdam and 87th. they love you there. that's your base. >> it is. look, i'll take what i can get. i think, as larry hogan told me also, he thinks that a campaign like this would be very, very good for, you know, people's blood pressure, but more importantly, might be good for cable ratings.

>> well, who cares about that? but thank you so much for being here. >> thanks, joe. >> mark considers, of course, his run for 2020, in challenging donald trump. jonathan, let's talk about the democratic field. we've talked about what may happen on the republican side. >> right. >> let's talk about the democratic field. right now, it is so interesting, obviously, bernie is strong. he could win iowa, could win new hampshire, could be the only person that has the money to put ads up in california. i mean, this guy could lock it down pretty early. then you have joe biden coming in on thursday. what are your thoughts about how that impacts his race and the rise of mayor pete? >> so the entry of vice president pibiden is one where i -- i wish he wouldn't do this. simply for his legacy. but he's going to get in. he's going to run.

he's at the top of the polls, at least right now. then we'll see whether this former vice president, who has run for president twice before, can actually run a campaign in the 21st century, in the era of trump, in the era of social media. i think that vice president biden, mayor pete buttigieg, and beto o'rourke all occupy the same lane. i think beto is off to the wayside. i do think that it'll be fun to watch how vice president biden and mayor pete campaign against each other. because, to my mind, if vice president biden, if his campaign stalls or flames out, mayor pete is the younger alternative. he's a progressive from a red state, but i think the movement behind mayor pete is all around the fact that he talks in a way that appeals to the progressive wing of the party, but also to

the centrist democrats who might feel like the party is getting away from them on certain issues. >> jonathan, before you leave us, we buried the lead, you saw tootsie on broadway last night. what is the brief review? >> it is fantastic. the wrigting is really good. i was laughing so hard, i had to pull out my handkerchief. i was writing. >> put it on the marquee, i laughed so hard, i cried. >> that's how a lot of us feel after a couple hours of "morning joe." >> in tears, without the laughter. >> great to see you. ahead on "morning joe," republican senator and member of the judiciary committee, mike lee of utah is standing by to join us in the studio. a lot to ask him, including new reporting that former homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen was warned by mick mulvaney not to talk about russian meddling with president trump. "morning joe" will be right back. ok everyone!

our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions...

it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. thwho see things others can't. they're the ones who see a city that can make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see cars that can talk to each other and share their best shortcuts. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. ♪ why? because they can see the infinite possibilities of the power of data flowing through our world. at dell technologies, we see it too. and we can help make your digital future real

so you can move the world forward in beautiful, unimaginable ways. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and together we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

♪

with us now, let's bring in a member of the judiciary committee, republican senator mike lee of utah. author of the new book "our lost declaration," america's fight against tyranny from king george to the deep state. senator, always great to talk to you. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> so let's talk, first of all, about news of the day. actually, as it relates to your book, obviously, you and i have both been, for good reasons, because we served in the congressional -- the legislative branch of government, but we're both article one guys and have been concerned about the imperial presidency, concerned about president obama's flurry of executive orders, and i've been concerned, and i believe you, too, were concerned about the president declaring emergency powers. now, we hear as obama and bush and other presidents have done in the past, we hear this morning that the president's not going to comply with subpoenas. how do we balance out the power

of the legislative branch and the power of the executive branch, which has just been growing and growing and growing over the past 40 or 50 years? >> yeah. that's a good point. i would say it is not only the last 40 or 50 years, i would say it's more been over the last 70 or 80 years, when the power of the executive branch has grown. the interest thing ing thing isi think the legislative branch is almost entirely to blame. it's one of the points i make in my book, one of the reasons i wrote "our lost declaration." i believe the legislative branch, in order to make it easier for individual members of congress to avoid criticism, has systematically outsourced its authority. the national emergency act is a great example of that. decades ago, we gave this vast power to the executive branch, then we cry about it when it gets used. the fact is, that is, in fact, the legislative power, and it is exercised within the exercise

br executive branch because we allowed it to do so. it is wrong. >> let's talk about the news of the y,hich is, of course, the president of the united states telling bob costa of the "washington post" that he is going to ignore subpoenas from the oversight committee. republicans would say, well, barack obama and eric holder did that starting in 2011 on fast and furious. how in the world do you have either a republican or a democratic oversight committee ever having the power to adequately oversee an administration if it is the attorney general who decides whether those contempt orders can be enforced or not? >> this is one of the prerogatives of the executive branch. you're right, this has been litigated figuratively and literally over the course of many decades, with republican and democratic administrations, against republican and

democratic congresses. only the executive branch has a prosecutorial power, and as part of that, tough have an attorney general or justice department willing to bring an action to support a subpoena. >> but, senator, they never will though. >> right. typically, they don't. >> just like attorney general barr is no more likely to find donald trump in contempt of congress than eric holder would have found barack obama in con cement tempt of congress. should we select attorney generals like fbi directors, somebody that maybe serves for ten years? >> i don't think so. the reason i don't think so is i tend to believe that we're better off when someone stands in that position, along with most -- perhaps all executive branch positions, those people need to stand accountable to the president at any moment, whether it's a republican or a democrat or something else.

there is value in having political accountability and having the attorney general of the united states, for example, be nominated by the president and serve at the pleasure of the president. that provides political accountability to the president. >> but do you think that's being provided right now with attorney general barr? >> well, i think it is provided, in the sense that when a president's attorney general decides to take or not take a particular action, that's answerable ultimately to the president. >> and let's talk about, did you agree with attorney general barr's decisions last week as it pertained to the mueller report, as it pertained to him drawing conclusions, and the way that he released the mueller report, the way he summarized the mueller report, the way that many people believed he was acting more on behalf of donald trump than the american people?

>> yeah, don't believe -- i don't agree with the latter conclusion. i think he responded in a professional manner. i think he did his job. i don't think he was acting pursuant to political pressure. i think he was doing what he believed was the right thing to do under the law. look, two years had been spent on this investigation. at the end of the day, they found no evidence, not even a s bit of evidence, to support the collusion theory. ultimately, there was a decision made that there was no reason, no basis upon which to proceed with a criminal prosecution of the president. i think he properly concluded the solution here, any further action to be taken on this is a political decision, one to be made within congress. i don't question that, and i support him wholeheartedly. >> senator, you write in volume one of the mueller report, the special counsel could not establish a conspiracy between the trump campaign and the russian government, but it made very clear over the 450 pages a systemic russian effort to

interfere in the 2016 election, echoing what our intelligence agency said before. there was a story that just crossed in "the new york times" that kirstjen nielsen wanted to approach the president and raise her concern about continued russian interference in our election process and was told by the white house chief of staff mick mulvaney not to raise that with the president. any talk of that was somehow an argument for de-legitimizing the president's election. are you concerned by the fact that the president's view of his election in 2016 is somehow suppressing the awareness and the reaction to the threat of russian interference in our elections? >> i haven't read that story yet, so i can't say this with confidence, but it doesn't sound to me that's necessarily what that was saying. it sounds like a decision was made by the white house chief of staff about what should and shouldn't be brought directly to the president, rather than through the chief of staff. >> do you think the president shows enough concern, even privately when you talk to him about the russian threat?

we said you can say it once if you're the president of the united states, yes, there's russian interference. i accept that. we have to do more about it. no, i had nothing to do with it. why can't he say the first part of that statement? >> well, i don't think he disputes the fact that it happened. i don't think statement? >> i don't think he disputes the fact that it happened, i don't think any of us deny that there was russian interference. my now colleague mitt romney, then presidential candidate, warned about russia. i wish those warnings hadn't gone unheeded by president obama. that the early warnings detected by president obama in the 2016 election cycle, i wish that had resulted in more action on their part to make sure that this -- >> but you saw last summer, senator, the president of the united states standing on a stage in helsinki with president vladimir putin saying i don't know why he would do it.

pouring cold water on the idea. so do you think he is concerned enough about russian interference in our election process? >> i think he is concerned. this isn't something we can tolerate. it's important to remember that there is no evidence of collusion and there's no evidence of efforts by the russian government had any impact on the ultimate outcome of this election. >> senator, bernie sanders was on talking about russian interference and there's no doubt that the trump campaign used information that the russians leaked. he said that was a-okay. is that okay with you? >> i don't ever intend to be a campaign manager. it's difficult for me to say whether for sure they would do that. >> would you use it in a senate campaign? >> i don't think so. if somebody came to me under those circumstances i think i

would be inclined to report them to the appropriate government authorities and deal with them at arm's length at best through our own government. but as i said, never have been in that position and hope never to be. >> i wanted to ask you about the report and the part that's now more of a live issue and obstruction of justice. i know you've said as to obstruction, a quote of yours here, they were unable, meaning mueller's investigators, were unable to come up with a case against the president that would survive in court. you point out this is not a legal issue. the question is a political one. the report has ten instances that, for many people, they read them and say i don't know what the legal standard is here but that looks like obstruction of justice to me, including the president, asking the counsel to fire bob mueller, asking him to lie about, notes to file that he suggest that he did not ask bob mueller to fire him. those things, to a common sense voter, look an awful lot like

you're trying to obstruct something. how is it that you don't think if those things are not meeting the standard, are not troubling and that the president is inappropriately abusing his power. >> first of all, we are talking about things that were never carried through all the way. secondly, this is a political question and not one that can be brought forward in court and, therefore, by its very nature. it's up to the house of representatives to decide whether it wants to do anything about this. number three, it's important to remember that it tends to be a political mistake for the party to go after the occupant of the white house especially within a year and a half of a presidential election campaign. >> can i interrupt and ask you this question? i've been trying to ask you -- not a political analysis but ask you this question. sitting president of the united states, member of your party, went to his counsel and tried to order that the man who was investigating him be fired.

that counsel stood up and said i'm not going to do that. the president then asked him to lie about it, both publicly and then lie about it in documents he would put in the files. does that not strike you personally as obstruction of justice or at least as something that is extraordinarily troubling? >> it certainly strikes me as something that's unflattering. you conduct an investigation like this over the course of two years, you're going to find some things that are unflattering. this is unflattering. i don't think anyone disputes that. >> so, senator, thank you for coming and answering our questions. let's talk about your book. "our lost declaration." you said you've never run for president, never worked on a presidential campaign. let's just say, though -- let's say you were president. talk about what you would do to help enact some of the things that you write about in "our lost declaration"? >> i would work tirelessly to

reinvigorate article i of our constitution, which ties directly into our declaration of independence and why i wrote "our lost declaration." over the last 80 years we've seen a profound shift of power from the people's elected lawmakers in washington over to the executive branch. one of the things we pushed back against at the time of the american revolution. one of the reasons we no longer fly the union jack or sing "god save the queen" has not to do with just getting rid of a monarchy but the inherent dignity of the human mortal soul. government is not there to serve the people but the other way around, i reinvigorate that the laws are to be made by congress, that the most dangerous branch of government is congress, most accountable to the people at regular intervals. the entire house of representatives is up for every two years and one-third of the senate is up for election every

two years. that's why we should only entrust the most dangerous government of powers with the most dangerous branch. >> so, senator, there has been, actually, this tension from the start, even anybody that's ever read the federalist papers understands that the battle has been raging since hamilton and madison worked together to draw those papers. it seems right now, though, that hamilton is having his day, that the hamilton side of the argument is prevailing over madison's. >> yes, that is right. i would take it a step further and say it's not just the hamilton side that's prevailing in that there's been more of a concentration of power at the federal level but also that king george iii model is prevailing. i'm not talking about just this administration. in fact, i'm talking about basically every republican and democratic administration over the last 80 years under house of representatives, senates and white houses of every

conceivable partisan combination who have systematically handed over these vast powers to the executive branch. war power, law making power, the regulatory system, the intelligence gathering apparatus, law enforcement agencies and all kinds of agencies that are told, in effect, go and make good law. this is exactly the type of government we fought back against at the time of revolution. instead of having a single figure head, king george iii, at the time of the revolution, we have tens of thousands of executive branch bureaucrats who are nameless and faceless as far as the american people go but, like the king, cannot be removed. that's troubling. it ought to concern all of us, and it's the focus of my book. >> all right, senator. and that book is "our last declaration," marijuana america's fight against tyranny, from king george to the deep state. it's available now. senator mike lee, thanks again. appreciate you being with us.

jared kushner tries to dismiss election interference as a couple of facebook ads. a couple seems, by many, to be quite an understaple. we'll be breaking it all down for you straight ahead on "morning joe." n "morning joe." we see two travelers so at a comfort innal with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

it's how we care for our patients- like job. his team at ctca treated his cancer and side effects. so job can stay strong for his family. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. cancer treatment centers of america. did you know comcast business goes beyond fast with a gig-speed network. complete internet reliability. advanced voice solutions. wifi to keep everyone connected. video monitoring. that's huge. did you guys know we did all this stuff? no. i'm not even done yet. wow. business tv.

cloud apps and support. comcast business goes beyond at&t. start with internet and voice for just $59.90 a month. it's everything a small business owner needs. comcast business. beyond fast. we now see the administration engaged in stonewalling of the facts coming to the american people. article i, the legislative branch spelled out in the constitution, the power of oversight over other branches of government, the right to know. >> in the words of one democrat it's like a curtain has fallen over the white house. less than a week after the release of the redacted mueller report, three house committees are now facing three acts of defiance from the white house. new oversight and new overnight, president trump is vowing to fight a judiciary committee subpoena for the testimony of his former white house counsel,

don mcgann. hampering information on how jared kushner got a security cloerns that was against the advice of career professionals, all while trump's treasury secretary steven mnuchin is delaying the irs from complying with a law, with a law that requires him to turn over the president's tax returns, missing a second deadline from the ways and means committee. good morning. welcome to "morning joe." it's wednesday. along with me, willie geist, mike barnacle, and co-host and executive producer of showtime's "the circus," jon heilman. msnbc political analyst elise

jordan and co-founder and ceo of axios, jim van dehye. mika has the morning off. let's start with these showdowns. it's happened before. we'll get into how it has happened with other administrations but it's never been quite this dramatic, never been quite this extreme. and we may, in fact, have a constitutional showdown that will only be played out in the courts. >> yeah. president trump said in an interview yesterday that the mueller report is the final, final decision. he believes the case is closed and he wants to move on, obviously, and willing to block anyone in his current white house or former employees of the white house from testifying. hours after anonymous sources told the post that the trump administration will fight congressional subpoenas like the ones sent to ex-white house counsel don mcgann, the president himself went on the record, telling robert costa of "the post" that he believes it's

unnecessary. quote, i allow mied lawyers and all the people to go and testify to mueller. and you know how i feel about that whole group of people that did the mueller report. i was so transparent. they testified for so many hours. they have all that information that's been given. he went on, i fully understood that at the beginning i had my choice. president trump added of his decision to allow his aides to testify in mueller's probe i could have taken the absolute opposite route. "new york times" when mueller asked to interview mcgahn to the surprise of the white house counsel's office, president trump and his lawyers signaled they had no objection without knowing the extent of what mcgahn was going to tell investigators. jerry nadler said because the committee's subpoena covers the topics that mcgahn covered in the mueller report they cannot the moment for the white house

to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony to be heard has long since passed. don mcgahn may have a choice. the president could tell him not to testify. don mcgahn can ignore that request and sit before the judiciary committee by answering that subpoena. >> yeah, he can. we'll see exactly what happens. he certainly doesn't want to be held in contempt of congress and has said as much. he also doesn't want to violate any privilege that the white house may have. but, you know, jim van dehuy, we all remember when the president allowed mcgahn to testify for mueller without much objection. he has a point, we cooperated with the mueller investigation. he gave tens of hours of time and interviews before the

mueller team. why does he need to be able to do it again? you may understand that reasoning. the only problem is that because he testified for so long in front of mueller, that privilege, that executive privilege, by all -- i mean, for all intents and purposes, that's waved and any court would determine that it would be waved. >> yeah. it's a big problem for the white house because don mcgahn is sort of the star of the mueller report and really has the opportunity to be the star of this whole saga with donald trump because he knows so much and testified for so long. because they waved that executive privilege no matter how much the president wants to run out the clock and drag this o out, eventually most people who looked at that time think mcgahn will end up testifying before congress. and it's problematic. don mcgahn, obviously, read the mueller reports, captivating sections in that report are about mcgahn and efforts to

obstruct that probe and tell things that he knew to be lies and that's a big problem. the president read that report, summary of the report or watched the coverage of the summaries of the record and is livid that these people who worked for him testified and embarrassed him. he's not just saying don't you testify, don mcgahn. he's saying anyone inside the white house, anybody affiliated with this, turn down the subpoenas, protect my tax returns. he wants to drag this thing out and he doesn't want anyone else sitting before congress. he believes, and probably rightly so, that republicans will stand behind him, in congress and voters. one of his aides told us last night he thinks it's a political issue. he will take it to the courts, just like he did his business cases before being in the presidency and he thinks he will drag it out till election day, where he feels he won because the mueller report didn't call for indictment or say that he

obstructed justice specifically. >> yeah. you know, and i think the president is right in this case. i don't think he's going to get much pushback from republicans in congress. i don't think he's going to get much pushback from the voters by defying congress and having a showdown with the democratic house. this has happened before, jon heilman. not to the extent we're seeing right now but we all remember in 2011 when the republican house oversight committee was trying to get information on fast and furious from then attorney general eric holder, held him in contempt. and from 2011 to 2016, they didn't get any of the answers that they wanted. i'm going to say i, for one, i'm ready for the courts to bring some sort of resolution to this because a contempt of congress does not have the bite that it should have. and we learned that not only in

the obama administration, but in the bush administration. white houses, for the most part, have been able to run roughshod over oversight committees. i think it's time for the d.c. circuit and the supreme court to step in and be aggressive and give some of the article one power back. >> yeah. i mean, look, joe, yes, i think we are on the current trajectory we're on, we're headed for a court battle and one with extraordinarily high stakes. there's -- politics are a little different, i think, for this president, this congress over these issues than they were over fast and furious or over a variety of other times when executive branches claimed executive privilege in an overbroadway. the history here, you know the history people will go to will be to go to nixon and watergate. the interesting question to me is the political one where, you know, if you think about where

things were five days ago, nancy pelosi was telegraphing to the entire world that she did not want to pursue impeachment. much of the democratic caucus was reluctant to pursue impeachment. in that sense, donald trump's interest and much of the democratic majority's interests were aligned in the sense that donald trump doesn't want to be impeached and the house democrats were not eager to try to impeach him. and yet somehow by defying the house in such a blanket way on this issue and on others, and getting into such a pronounced fight with pelosi over such an important institutional prerogative, it seems as though the president is inviting impeachment at this point. he's making it increasingly difficult for democrats not to take that step, but if the president is going to continue and the white house is going to continue to play the game the way they're playing it with this level of aggression and this level of total disregard for the institutional prerogatives in

congress, he's backing nancy pelosi in some sense into a corner where she's going to have to go ahead and start down the path in a more straightforward way, down the path toward impeachment. and i think the pressure from the democratic base is just rising as they see the white house acting with this kind of impetus. >> again that's exactly what donald trump would hope would happen. that would be the reaction he would hope to see because he knows if impeachment hearings start, his numbers will be going up. we talked about that, willie, yesterday. another thing that this constitutional showdown brings up -- i wouldn't call it a constitutional crisis that would happen if donald trump had fired mueller, but this constitutional showdown, once again, shows that, you know, of all the institutions that have held up well during the challenges brought on by the trump administration, one that it continues to cause me problems

is the office of the attorney general and that was the case before barr got in there. because think about this. when a congress holds an administration in contempt for not testifying or not turning over documents, then to be prosecuted, you have to go where? to a u.s. attorney. >> right. >> who has to get the approval from the attorney general. one of the reasons why eric holder from 2011 to 2016 was able to ignore subpoena after subpoena and contempt citation after contempt citation really does seem to me, we need to reexamine the role of the attorney general and move it beyond being such a partisan position to almost being like the fbi director where the ag is appointed for ten-year service. >> yeah. william barr, obviously, showed his hand last week when a lot of people were hoping he would

stand in the breach and have a clear and concise and fair explanation for what's in the mueller report. he got out ahead of it and put a partisan spin on it. we know where he stands and elise it's not just this story about blocking testimony from the white house. there's all kinds of stone walling, to go back to the tax returns and a lawsuit that was just filed by president trump and the trump organization against elijah cummings, chair of the committee, because the president is accusing elijah cummings of overstepping his role in oversight. they're battening down the hatches and sealing the place off at the white house? >> and definitely with regard to william barr, we saw he is willing to take an incredibly strong stance on behalf of executive power and to jon's point about how the political winds are shifting and growing toward impeachment and donald

trump continuing to fight it. he may not want it. republicans on one hand would really like it, because they know it helps them and the democratic base certainly does want it. still ahead on "morning joe," joe biden kicks off his presidential run, first in the polls and last in fund-raising. can the former vp catch up with his rivals after starting the money race with zero dollars in the campaign war chest? first bill karins has a check on the forecast. good morning, bill. >> dallas took it on the chin last night. flash flooding was reported. this is what it looks like with the 60-mile-per-hour winds. there are reports of 50 to 60 vehicles in the lower levels of dallas love airport that the pumps stopped working and the vehicles got completely submerged. imagine going back to your flight and walking to the parking garage and seeing that scene. dallas, to houston, those storms

have moved out of dallas. right rain now. del rio and santonio. in all, 14 million people at risk today strong winds, large hail, isolated tornadoes, san antonio, austin, houston, lake charles in louisiana will even get in on this later today. three straight days of this mess. because the ground is so saturated, we have a flash flood watch over 10 million people. this afternoon when new storms form, that could happen. eastern seaboard, a beautiful, beautiful day. the west coast is still very warm. we start to see that storm system exiting texas, thankfully for them. and travel plans friday, one of those days we'll have rain from tampa all the way up and down the east coast. clears out for saturday but friday is your bad day from i-95 in new york down to the southeast. new york city, yesterday was nice. today? could even be better.

is that even possible? two great days in a row. you're watching "morning joe." you're watching "morning joe." we call it the mother standard of care. it's something we take personally, and believe in passionately. it's the idea that if our mothers were diagnosed with cancer, how would we want them to be treated? that's exactly how we care for you. with answers and actions. to hear your concerns, quiet your fears, lift your spirits. with teams of cancer experts and specialists, delivering advanced treatment options and compassionate support every step of the way. all here in one place, with one purpose. to fight your cancer, together. that's the mother standard of care. this is how we inspire hope.

this is how we heal. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. brushing only reachescenters of america. 25% of your mouth. listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™

so, every day,

we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country.

we expect former vice president joe biden to jump into the crowded democratic field tomorrow. two sources close to vice president biden with direct knowledge of the planning confirmed to nbc news the former vice president plans to announce his run tomorrow morning with an online video. he will then travel to pittsburgh monday for an event at a local union hall, nbc has learned. in the weeks to kick off his campaign with a tour of four very early voting states. meanwhile biden will enter the race with a huge fund-raising disadvantage. vermont senator bernie sanders

has raised more than $26 million across his various committees, biden will enter the with zero dollars. former vice president's campaign would have to raise $100,000 every day till christmas in order to match sanders' fund-raising totals. obviously he will catch up in fund-raising, he knows a lot of people in high places in the democratic party. what's his mind-set, his mentality as he hops into the race tomorrow? >> i think his mentality is that he is the only guy who can certainly beat donald trump. that's his whole card. that's the card he's going to play. he has become to make fund-raising calls himself. it's unusual. he doesn't like to do it. there's the peril for him in that bernie sanders and multiple other candidates in the field, jim van dehuy, have specific knowledge of how to reach low, $25, $30 contributors, repeat contributors. the biden campaign doesn't have that base yet.

they'll have to go initially, i would think, to large donors who drop down big checks at fund-raising dinners and that way other candidates will lash back at him, i'm sure. >> there's a couple of problems for biden, right? he's getting in and is going to make the argument i'm the only one who can beat trump but most americans will look at the polls and show that many other candidates poll as well as he does. this is a different era. in this juncture of the campaign it's often how well can you communicate with people on social media? can you get them to turn out for your events? can you convert those social media followers into low-dollar donors which creates its own type of momentum? and joe biden is old school, doing this fairly conventionally. look at the rollout. he's going to do it in his home stayed, go to the four early

states and do other speeches that you think joe biden would do. it's just a different time for him. had he gotten in a month or two ago when everyone was saying he could be potentially the savior and protector of the democratic party, it would be a different story. the coverage over him the last three weeks has been less than positive. even the coverage of his announcement has been very much he's going to do this day, that day, might do it by video, might not do it by video. just feels like it's not a well-oiled machine and it feels like he's jumping in when there are a lot of democrats creating excitement, buttigieg, kamala harris. and they can energize the democratic party in a way that joe biden might have trouble doing. >> i get to talk to a democratic

activist or fund-raiser who is excited about joe biden getting in the race and i'll take it a step further, and i've been surprised but almost every democrat, to a person that i have spoken with, is concerned that this is going to end badly for joe biden and that he should not get into the race. and that is something i have heard repeatedly over the past several months. what about you? >> well, i think, yes. i think that's consistent with a lot of people who tune into politics have heard, including me. people close to the vice president and people who consider themselves fans of joe biden, people who would be happy to live in an america where joe biden is president is the constituency that is most concerned about what's about to happen to him. they've seen what's happened, what's unfolded over these last few months, not just related to

some of these issues with some women who said he was sort of too familiar with them in some cases and didn't respect their personal space, but also watching him kind of mishandle some questions related to how progressive he is, and how he fits into the modern party. there are these issues that jim just pointed to and mike pointed to. he has never been a good fund-raiser. he has not been a player in the era of small donor fund-raising. he has loyalestists around him who love and support him, demonstrably, his past two runs didn't work out well for him. first of all among activists, there's not a cry but there's a long chunk of yardage between now and the first votes and there's not a lot of activists who are crying out for joe biden and people who like him most and have his best interest at heart

you hear a pronounced sense of, i wouldn't exactly say fear but concern that this might not go all that well. coming up on "morning joe," bob mueller says russian interference was sweeping and systemic. jared kushner says it was a couple of facebook ads. we'll talk about that disconnect just ahead when "morning joe" comes right back. just ahead when "morning joe" comes right back everyone's got to listen to mom. when it comes to reducing the sugar in your family's diet, coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

( ♪ ) only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol®. for fast pain relief. ten detailed acts of obstruction of justice. robert mueller's report lays out a roadmap for impeachment proceedings against this president and challenges congress to do its job. i'm tom steyer and we can't let this president destroy the public trust, break his oath of office and get away with it. congress has to do its job and hold him accountable. please call them at this number. tell them to get going.

lot of incredible rights and safeties we take for granted often times and there are people on the front lines that cannot be here, like a saudi activist who helped fight to lift the women's driving ban. and she's currently in prison. she cannot be with us here tonight. she's been tortured. this is a very powerful room and, you know, i know there's a lot of very powerful people here. it would be crazy if, i don't know, if there was just like a -- i don't know. if there was a high-ranking official in the white house that could whatsapp mbs and say hey,

maybe you could help that person get out of prison because they don't deserve it. but that would be crazy. that person would have to be in the room. >> that's comedian hasan minaj at last night's time 100 dinner, toasting someone who was not in the room with someone who was, jared kushner was sitting a few tables away when hasan said that. mueller report, where he downplayed russia's cyber campaign to disrupt the 2016 election. >> it's a terrible thing but i think the investigations and all the speculation that's happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact on democracy than a couple of facebook ads. i think the ensuing investigations have been way more harmful to our country. >> facebook reported

russia-based operatives published around 80,000 posts that could have reached about 126 million americans, joe. and the mueller report investigators called russia's efforts to disrupt the election sweeping and systemic. so, clearly not just a few facebook ads. >> and elise jordan, you also, of course, had administration officials, kierstin nieljsen saying it was a threat to our democracy. and breaking story in the "new york times," that chief of staff mick mulvaney warned kierstjen nielsen not to mention how she was to not mention that in front of president trump. according to the report, by eric

schmidt, maggie haberman, mulvaney made it clear that president trump still align ed russian interference with his election illegitimate massy, not a great discussion and should be kept at a low level. i can't go on here. who else wrote this story? david sanger, exactly. i didn't want to leave david sanger out of there. just incredible reporter for e "the times." this was something, though, eli elise, that the head of the fbi, the head of the justice department, the head of nsa. i mean, everybody. national director of intelligence. everybody that's anybody in that administration said that

actually russian interference in the elections threatened american democracy. that was pretty straightforward. >> it's still mind blowing to me that leader's feelings are pore important than protecting the integrity of free and fair elections. it is insanity that we have a leader who his ego will not allow us to address critical national security threats because his feelings might be hurt and because it calls into question his election. and that's where we are today. >> so, mike, i want to ask you this question. over the weekend, rudy giuliani went on television on a couple of occasions and said i don't really see what the problem is with accepting material from an adversary. in this case, russia. >> yeah. >> that was stolen from the national democratic party, john

podesta's email. now we have jared kushner saying this russian interference thing was not a big deal, just a couple of ads. what message does it send to russia when the president's lawyer and son-in-law in the course of 48 hours make those kind of statements about their view of russian interference and what does it foretell for 2020? >> the message is, obviously, to russia, you're already here. we know you're here. we're going to open the door a little bit wider now because we're just going to ignore what you've done and what you're continuing to do and what you want to do in the 2020 election. the kushner appearance, though, yesterday, jon, in the time magazine thing, the arrogance and ignorance he displayed in answering that question is eerily breathtaking but is predictable. it's also predictable as to why so many members of the intelligence community did not want to give him a security

clearance. based on that answer, he ought not to have a security clearance. >> coming up on "morning joe," islamic state claims responsibility for those coordinated bombings in sri lanka. we'll talk to brett mcgirk, former point person for the global coalition to defeat isis. he joins the conversation next on "morning joe." conversation t on "morning joe. ♪ dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness.

the psoriasis. i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx.

car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana.

>> the trump white house is reportedly struggling to get allies to provide troops and logistical support in syria in order to prevent the resurgence of isis but nearly half so far have declined and the others have only agreed to provide nominal support according to u.s. and foreign officials. despite the lack of commitments,

officials say they're convinced enough allies will come together to provide support in the region. meanwhile, isis has claimed responsibility for the deadly terrorist bombings in sri lanka, releasing images purportedly showing the suicide bombers loyalty to the group. brett mcgirk, nbc news and msnbc foreign affairs analyst, distinguished lecturer at stanford university. also with us here in new york, former representative of california, director, president and ceo of the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, jane harman. jane, good morning. >> good morning, willie. >> thank you for being here. allies not falling in to support the united states, at least the white house's plan? >> thanks, willie. i think it's not surprising. we have an undisciplined national security decision making process where i feel for

our diplomats who are trying to line up this coalition. it's unclear around the world whether they speak for the president. the president made it clear he doesn't want to be in syria. he has said isis is defeated. we've seen clearly over the last 72 hours, isis is not defeated. these attacks in sri lanka are a serious wake-up call. we've not had an attack like this since november 2015. after those november 2015 in paris we decimated their external networks, eliminated all the planners and plotters and to see this attack in sri lanka, that shows they've reconstituted, clearly breakdown in security from the sri lankans. something has to be done there. i hope we're keeping a focus on the isis. the campaign is not just syria or the caliphate. it is global.

we're working to connect the dots around the world and we really hope that infrastructure is intact. for the president to say this is over, it just means that his leadership is really waning on this critical issue and isis wants to attack us here at home. >> jane, i want to ask you the question -- always great to have you with us. by the way, jane, i want to ask you this question and get brett's response earlier this week. right after the attacks on monday saying al qaeda was islamic terrorism 1.0. isis in iraq starting in 2005, 2006 under szalhari, 2.0. he fears we've now moved to islamic terror 3.0 with these sri lankan attacks. do you agree? that this is a new ball game. >> hi, joe. lovely to see you, too. and to thank brett on air for his magnificent service.

he looks like dick tracy and he just was amazing in the role as the anti-isis coordinator. and everything you need to know about this topic is in his article in foreign fairs magazine called "you can't do more with less." but back to this. terrorism 3.0? i think we've been at terrorism 3.0 for a long time and moves like changing sides in libya are just going to create more failed states and more territory for isis and maybe alcohol to re-establish the caliphate. alcohol is still alive and well, too. and its mantra was near simultaneous attacks. that's what we saw in sri lanka. so, yes, it probably was isis, but just maybe sort of kind of it it was al qaeda 2.0. that was a massive intelligence failure. the indians have the intelligence. we were helping. we knew who these guys were for months. we interviewed, at least they

did, one of the guys two years ago and the president of sri lanka did not share the intelligence with his folks and this happened. this was, maybe, avoidable. certainly, it should have been minimized. but this kind of thing could happen anywhere, including in the u.s., especially when now at the homeland department we don't have any top leadership and we're surging all the focus on the southern border. >> so, brett, we've always known, and people said it starting on september 12th, 2001, there would be no neat signing ceremony, there would be no tidy end to this war like there was on the missouri at the end of world war ii. how do we deal with the threat that it seems like, you know, we kill osama bin laden and chase al qaeda back into caves. we then, of course, with your help, we destroy the caliphate

in syria or most of the caliphate in syria. every time we achieve one of these victories it's like, you know, smashing an ant bed and the ants scatter and it becomes even harder to follow all of those leads. how do we ultimately win that war? >> well, look, it's a big question. i think we have to take some credit for our successes. i think what we've done in iraq and seyria is significant. we haven't seen anything like this since november 2015. this attack in sri lanka should have been stopped. jane hit it on the head. the intelligence was there. we should be able to stop these things. we've built an international global architecture with intelligence sharing and through the coalition we built of sharing information so we can stop these types of attacks before they happen. it's difficult to pull off a

sophisticated attack like this with all the people who must have gone into it. you have a breakdown in intelligence here, which did not happen. look, we have to get it down to a level in which local authorities are able to take care of the problem on their own. we've done a pretty good job of that. it's kind of like crime. you never get it down to zero. you want to make sure you protect your homeland and keep these guys focused on local problems. in iraq and syria in 2014, we had 40,000 people pouring in from all around the world, planning attacks in europe and here in our homeland. we were able to really stop that. i'm worried again because the president has basically said this is over. that sends a message throughout the u.s. bureaucracy. our priorities are shifting to other types of threats, iran and other things. we have to keep our focus on those, the president sets the direction in prioritization. and we have to keep al qaeda and isis as a top, top priority because they are the guys who are trying to attack us. and without the president

setting that message from the top i'm just afraid what we've done will begin to atrophy and we'll be more at risk. >> off of what brett was just talking about, clearly, isis has a very successful franchise operation. >> yeah. >> sri lanka was a very, very successful, as well as lethal operation. i'm wondering two things. one, is there still a central location, a home base for isis? for instance, is it in syria? and, secondly, off of what brett and you have both been speaking about this morning, the continuing conflict between the president of the united states in his own intelligence services, has that served to disrupt the strength, the focus on eradicating isis? >> yes and yes. isis is an idea more than it is a militia. not that it can't be lethal. let's imagine that sri lanka was at least isis inspired. no question about that, whether

isis actually directed the people to carry out the attack. these attacks are not that hard. if you're ready to lose your life and you're covered with explosives and you drive into a christmas market, guess what, you kill folks. not necessarily 320 folks and wound 500 more, but you kill a lot of folks. so, my answer is that isis is everywhere. everywhere there's an internet, isis is there. and defeating the idea requires a much more inspired effort by the united states. we have to live our values. we have to make clear that we are offering a better idea. you defeat a bad idea with a good idea. so there's that. in terms of your second question was -- >> intelligence agencies. >> yeah, yeah, undermining the intelligence community hurts. the recruitment effort, i think, so far as i know, is down for our intelligence community. the morale is reasonably high

inside, but when you are discounted by leadership, it takes a toll. i used to, as the senior democrat on the house intelligence committee for many years, travel around to our stations and have brown bag lunches and try to explain what they were hearing on television. it didn't start with president trump. there's been undermining ever since 9/11 and some people are very suspicious. but i would say our intelligence community is really, really good and it needs to be bolstered to prevent and disrupt attacks. we don't want to have sri lanka. what we want to do is prevent a sri lanka. >> jane and brett, thank you for your insights. we appreciate it. still ahead on "morning joe." >> at the tender age of 31, i still had a year left before hitting rock bottom, a year left before being that guy, violent drug snorting thug before i became this guy, a family man

and reporter at "the new york times." >> his daughter, erin leigh carr, is out with a book about her dad and their relationship. t her dad and their relationship t. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair, while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans, now cleans itself.

but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. being a journalist, i never feel bad talking to journalism students because it's a grand, grand keeper. you get to leave, go talk to strangers, ask them anything[,

come back, type of their stories, edit the tape. that's not going to retire your loans as quickly as it should and not going to turn you into a person that what kind of car they should be, but that's kind of how it should be. i mean, it beats working. >> that is the late, great david carr addressing the graduating class of 2014 at uc berkeley's graduate school of journalism. acclaimed media writer and journalist died less than a year later after collapsing in "the new york times" where he worked. much of david's life was marked by struggle. he overcame numerous battles with addiction to become one of the most respected journalist. as "the washington post" noted, carr focused on media criticism, lacing his column with decisive commentary and wit, offering candor on everything from dress to writing to professional leadership. "the new york times" editor called carr the finest media reporter of his generation whose

unending passion for journalism and the truth will always be mixed. joining us now is david's daughter, documentary and filmmaker erin lee carr, and author of "alll that you leave behind." thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> i can't imagine it was an easy thing to do, to sit down and comb through your father's life. why did you want to write this book? >> you know, i looked at those emails the night he died and i found him searching for his voice. he had an unmistakable unique voice. it wasn't just talking about journalism and criticism but sobriety, how to be a good friend, how to go on. it was almost like he was speaking to me after he passed away. it really was what can i do to honor that legacy. >> was it hard to do that? was it hard to sit down and read through those emails? it's only been a couple of years since he passed away. i imagine it was emotional for you. >> yes, it was deeply painful but i thoughts it was an incredible honor spending 18

months studying my father, looking at what he did and brought to the world. somebody formally addicted to crack and told my sister and i when we were 8 years old and talked about his story and that doesn't define you. you can have a different life. you can have a second act. i thought that was remarkable. boy, was he happy to i was happ part of it. >> joe? >> we all respected your father so greatly from a distance and whenever he came on this show. after he passed away i talked to people who worked for him and the love and admiration was extraordinary. what separated your father from other -- other media critics? what separated your father also as a mentor to so many other journalists? >> you know, that's a hard question to answer but i think it's that he didn't take bs. he was so direct and so honest. he saw a world that was terrible and scary and like he was

formally addicted so he was able to really look honestly at himself and then turn that onto the media. i think that is what his reporting was about. >> and that's i think the key to the core of david carr, his ability to handle what he went through. i would like you to speak a little bit more about him walking to you and your sister about his addiction and his life, what kind of impact it made on you at that age and coming forward. >> you know, i think he told us when we were really young, i mean 8 years old, it seems like a very early time to be hearing the words about cocaine or alcoholism. he wanted to explain why we were in foster care. why we didn't live with our mother. basically his sort of truthfulness and honesty in that moment, you know, helped us think about who we were. in his book "the night of the gun" he talks about the sort of the moment is leaving us in our

snow suits while he went to a house to get high, to score crack. and that was a really scary thing to hear as a child. and then to be an adult, and like i struggled with alcohol issues and i can read his book. i can read his emails. he was the person who helped me get sober. the book is about that, it's about being that kid in the snowsuit, being mentored by him, but also thinking about how to live honestly and truthfully. >> and he was really honest with you too. you write in the book where you have this sobriety discussion, you can either be a big drink in your own right or have a drinking problem the next ten years and be a little significant. that's some tough love. >> definite tough love. it was a dividing moment, and i think that how lucky i was to have somebody see it so clearly because so few people have it. and one of the motivations in writing this book was it just wasn't that i drank all the time and i wasn't going to a house to

get high and leaving twin baby girls. it just didn't look good. i wasn't going to do the things that i wanted to do. so the book is like what did that look like in terms of struggling to drinking but not going over the edge but like stopping? >> in the end it's done now, right, and the emotional in the end, this is probably an emotional thing and my book writing is emotional in some ways but is it solid, is it catharsis? how do you feel about this being in the world? >> i feel proud. i feel sure if i was going to be able to do it. he wrote a beautifully written book i was going to have to stand up against. it was so painful, but honestly if i can put his words out where people and journalism students can read this and people who are struggling can read it, that is a contribution and that is the david carr way. how not to go towards fear? that's what happened, and that's why i'm sitting here.

>> well said. the book is "alll that you leave behind." it's available now. erin lee carr, also, by the way, one of the most talented documentary filmmakers in the country. go check out all of her work. congratulations on the book. thank you for being here. that does it for us. stephanie ruhle picks up our coverage right now. >> thank you very much. good morning, everyone. i'm stephanie ruhle. a lot to cover today starting with executive power play. president trump tells "the washington post" in the wake of the mueller investigation, it is now unnecessary for his staff to comply with congress. and despite the report's top-line conclusion that russia did meddle in the election, team trump insists the investigation, that was the real interference. >> i think the investigations and all of the speculations that happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact than a couple facebook ads. >> facebook ads? and yearning to be free.